NJC’s Vindication of Justice Inyang

GUEST COLUMNIST BY ALEX MORGAN

The National Judiciary Council (NJC), has in a landmark decision, reversed itself on the suspension of Justice Jane E. Inyang of the Court of Appeal, Uyo Division.

Rising from its 110th meeting in Abuja on Tuesday, the NJC faulted its own earlier decision to suspend Justice Inyang for one year without pay, insisting that the petition on the strength of which the NJC based its suspension order on the Hon. Justice was filed outside the stipulated six-month period.

Moreover the 110th NJC meeting also pointed out that, apart from the petition being status barred, the matter in question was already the subject of an appeal as at the time the 108th NJC meeting gave its suspension order, meaning the matter was still sub judice.

In reversing itself, the NJC also ordered that all outstanding salaries and emoluments due Justice Inyang for the period of her faulty suspension be calculated and paid to her in full.

Trouble started for Justice Inyang when she was accused of granting an ex parte order to a receiver manager to sell a property in dispute, even when the matter was still at the interlocutory stage, a clear misrepresentation of the facts of the matter.

Justice Inyang did not grant an ordinary ex parte order for the sale of the said property. Her order was made alongside other orders in aid of the receivership in line with the provisions of Sections 555 to 563 of the Companies and Allied Matters Act, 2020. It was s not an illegal order, going by available court precedents.

To make matters worse, the 108th NJC meeting failed to take cognizance of the fact that, two days after Justice Inyang made the order (on June 14, 2023, in a matter, Suit No. FHC/UY/CS/46/2023, at the Federal High Court Uyo Judiciary Division), she was elevated to the Court of Appeal. And she effectively stopped sitting and returned all files to the Administrative Judge for re-assignment, taking her hands off the case.

She was not, therefore, in a position to know that her order, which, by the way, was not in finality, was not even served on the Respondent, as she directed.

It must be noted that every diligent judge handling a receiver manager matter, usually grants this type of order granted by Justice Inyang, in order to protect the properties at issue from being destroyed by the debtor. Such judge then directs that the order be served by publication in a national daily to put everyone on notice.

That service, in fact, is the responsibility of the court bailiff and other court officials, supported by security personnel, not the Judge.

To ensure fairness, Inyang further adjourned the matter for report of compliance, where all parties, if served would appear before the court to make their respective cases.

However, two days later, she was promoted to the Appeal Court, and off the case.

The case which basically arose from a mortgage transaction that went sour, was brought by a Receiver Manager. In matters of this nature, the process is usually to grant an ex parte order to protect the asset, in this case, Udeme Essiet’s companies, petrol stations and other businesses, from being plundered and dissipated, pending the final determination of the matter.

Since the order was interim, it is usually served on the Respondent, who on receipt files his own case and objections on the adjourned date. On the adjourned date, the court can decide to revoke or vary the interim order. This, Justice Inyang had no opportunity of doing because she had moved on.

But, for the avoidance of doubt, after Justice Inyang made the order, handed over the case file and moved on to assume duty at the Court of Appeal, the Federal High Court system, either by omission or commission, failed to serve the order on the Respondent, while the applicants, the bailiffs and all we went on to sell the said property, using this same temporary order – all these, without the knowledge of Justice Inyang who had since moved on.

Curiously, the buyer of the property in dispute, Justice S. Essien, then a judge of the National Industrial Court, who is not known to Inyang, and who claimed to have bought it for an uncle, was let off the hook, while Inyang was put on trial, using the same facts and evidence. Similarly, the court officials, bailiffs, security operatives and all who facilitated this back-door sale were not disciplined.

Furthermore, the petitioner in the matter was said to have apologised to Justice Inyang, before the Justice Mary Odili-chaired NJC panel, and withdrawn his allegation of bribery against Inyang, saying that he was now convinced that the order was not induced by any bribe to Justice Inyang. In fact, this exchange was actually said to have been recorded by the NJC panel, which still went ahead to indict Inyang.

Justice Inyang is the grand-daughter of the late Barrister Asuquo Etim Inyang of Ito-Ikoneto in the present day Odukpani Local Government Area in Cross River State. He was the first lawyer from the old Eastern Region which comprises the present day South-East and South-South Nigeria, to be called to bar in both the England and Nigeria. He was earlier admitted to the Inner Temple, London in 1921 and called to the English bar in July 1924. He was admitted to the Supreme Court of Nigeria in 1924.

Justice Inyang is well known for her independent and uncompromising stance on several cases where extraneous pressures have allegedly been mounted on judges.

It was she who gave a dissenting judgment in the Ogun State election petition that upheld Governor Dapo Abiodun’s election. She had insisted that the Electoral laws were not substantially complied with in the governorship election and had called for a fresh election.

Justice Inyang also delivered the lead judgement which upheld the death sentence passed on Chief Rahman Adedoyin, the Ile-Ife hotelier convicted for the murder, in his hotel, of a post graduate student of the Obafemi Awolowo University who had lodged in the hotel.

Few months ago, THISDAY Awards had honoured Justice Inyang for her courage, integrity and uncompromising stance in the defence of the law in all her years of service.

She has made her name as a Justice neither intimidated nor influenced by money or power. She is always standing by her conviction.

Most importantly, however, the vindication of Justice Inyang is a huge confirmation of the firmness and fairness of Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun, the Chief Justice of Nigeria.

It points to the CJN’s willingness to stand by, and defend, judicial officers.

Much as she is willing to punish and discipline erring judge brought before the NJC for misconduct and other infractions, Justice Kekere-Ekun does not lose sight of the fact that judges, as humans, can err on the facts or the law, which can be corrected by the appellate court.

She has shown a willingness, courage, humility and fairness to reverse herself and the NJC whenever they too are wrong.

• Morgan lives in Port Harcourt